Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By the way here it is for 2007 you can Google the other years.
Bush signs $100 billion Iraq war funding bill. 26/05/2007. ABC News Online (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1934069.htm - broken link)
So they were FUNDED, you claimed they were UNFUNDED by the Republicans care to produce any proof?
Wow. It says right in the second paragraph that it was emergency spending legislation. Thats not funding the war, thats just tacking a bill on to debt. Funding the war is including it in the yearly federal budget. For years, Iraq and Afghanistan were funded with EMERGENCY SPENDING LEGISLATION. This is not planned for in the annual budget with each fiscal year. They didn't cut spending somewhere else, they simply tacked it on to the debt.
Did you actually read the article and think about it? Or did you just look for an article that said funding.
Wow. It says right in the second paragraph that it was emergency spending legislation. Thats not funding the war, thats just tacking a bill on to debt. Funding the war is including it in the yearly federal budget.
Did you actually read the article and think about it? Or did you just look for an article that said funding.
It was a funding bill which part of funding can I help you with. Please point out where the Republicans UNFUNDED the war. We'll wait.
Are you sure that you actually read these sites? Do you know anything about the government over the past decade?
From your link:
Fund: To provide money for paying off the interest or principal of (a debt).
Emergency spending didn't provide money. It just added to debt. That is not funding.
Show me a budget where it was planned for.
Additionally I said Republicans had (or began if you prefer that word) unfunded wars (unfunded as an adjective). You argue that I said they unfunded (unfunded as a verb). Read and comprehend before you write. I never said Republicans removed funds from the troops. I said they were never there to begin with. It was emergency supplemental spending the whole time. The dems have kept the same policies but they aren't the only ones.
Are you sure that you actually read these sites? Do you know anything about the government over the past decade?
From your link:
Fund: To provide money for paying off the interest or principal of (a debt).
Emergency spending didn't provide money. It just added to debt. That is not funding.
Show me a budget where it was planned for.
Additionally I said Republicans had (or began if you prefer that word) unfunded wars (unfunded as an adjective). You argue that I said they unfunded (unfunded as a verb). Read and comprehend before you write. I never said Republicans removed funds from the troops. I said they were never there to begin with. It was emergency supplemental spending the whole time. The dems have kept the same policies but they aren't the only ones.
You are hopeless. The article states at least five times it was a funding bill to supplement funding that was running out. You stated the Republicans unfunded the wars. Now you state there was no funding at all since it wasn't budgeted (which it clearly was since funding was running out). You are running yourself in circles using your logic how could the Republicans unfund something you claim wasn't funded in the first place?
By the way read you own posts and try to comprehend your own writing you clearly wrote Republicans unfunded two wars sheesh.
By the way from your own link.
"Still, the number of Democrats who voted against the supplemental spending bill--" You do know what a supplemental spending bill is right?
And this article is about funding during the Obama administration. Obama is a Democrat.
I can't tell which is more sad: The idea that Newt Gingrich is a complete ignoramus, the idea that he just fakes ignorance to appeal to his followers, or the fact that whichever it is, it's evidently working.
Wow. It says right in the second paragraph that it was emergency spending legislation. Thats not funding the war, thats just tacking a bill on to debt. Funding the war is including it in the yearly federal budget. For years, Iraq and Afghanistan were funded with EMERGENCY SPENDING LEGISLATION. This is not planned for in the annual budget with each fiscal year. They didn't cut spending somewhere else, they simply tacked it on to the debt.
Did you actually read the article and think about it? Or did you just look for an article that said funding.
Ah yes, you found the smoking gun.
What ever happened to the good old days when we had the wars planned out to the dime. We used to know how long the war would take, how many troops and civilians would die or be injured, and we knew where, when and how the enemy would conduct their end of the war. Bah, those days are gone forever now, leave it to Bush to invent the fog of war.
How does she create $1 into a higher amount? Easy... by stealing it from someone... you cannot create "cash", you can only take it from someone else... the food stamp makes that money by taking it from someone else... they give you a dollar and the government takes the "cut" of 79 cents by stealing from someone $1.79... its a simple law... matter can neither be created nor destroyed... and neither can money
First, money is created all the time. There's a Wiki page on the subject and everything.
Second, Pelosi did not say that there was somehow a "return" on the $1 outlay. She said - and I quote "For every dollar a person receives in food stamps, $1.79 is put back into the economy". This actually happens to be the case.
Why? Because of the multiplier effect. If I spend an extra buck, somebody (presumably) makes money of it. He then goes off to spend some of that money, somebody else makes an an income etc. etc, and the GNP goes up every time that happens. Nice.
So, what the US economy is suffering from right now is a lack of spending. Reasonable financially secure bastards like yours truly are sitting on their savings instead of buying stuff. If you gave me an extra dollar, I'd probably not increase my spending all that much, so the multiplier effect would be pathetic.
However, those unfortunate enough to need food stamps are unlikely to be holding on to savings, they'll certainly spend that $1 food stamp. Better yet, they're more likely to spend whatever other money they do have on getting their car fixed or whatever.
This is a good thing, because that stimulates demand. Demand stimulates investment. Investment means that the banks can start issuing loans. The entire engine revs up again.
What Pelosi's saying is that under the current circumstances, giving the poor money (food stamps) stimulates the economy to a higher degree than giving the rich money (extending tax cuts for the highest incomes, for instance), and that is true. Newt, of course, knows this perfectly well.
You can argue that it's not 1.79, but rather 1.34 or whatever. Or you can argue that it's not a long-term viable model (you'd even be right). That doesn't change that Pelosi is right, Newt's aware of this, and for him to cite a bumper sticker is a perfect indication of the sophistication of his argument.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.